A. On October 26, 2012, the New Electric Power Credit Union (hereinafter referred to as the “New Power Transfer Credit Union”) concluded a loan transaction agreement with Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant loan agreement”) on the terms of lending KRW 420,000,000 per annum between Defendant A and Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Company) on condition that the loan will be repaid in equal installments every 60 months from the date on which the first loan comes after the execution of the loan will be paid in 8% per annum, overdue interest year, 22% per annum, and October 26, 2017.

B. On October 26, 2012, the New Electric Exchange deposited KRW 419,925,000 of the remaining loans, excluding the revenue stamp tax of KRW 75,00,00, with the new electric exchange account (Account C, a new account opened on the same day) under Defendant A’s name.

C. Defendant A forfeited the interest due to the delayed payment of part of the principal and interest of a loan under the instant loan agreement, and on March 22, 2013, Defendant A repaid the interest accrued until February 25, 2013 with the principal of a loan in KRW 397,026,513.

On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff merged a new electric power plant compromise.

[Evidence] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 397,026,513 with interest rate of KRW 22% per annum from February 26, 2013 to the date of full payment.

As to this, Defendant A entered into the instant loan contract upon the request of the representative director D of the Defendant Company, and the instant loan contract was made by fraud in collusion with F, G, etc. by calculating the excessive vehicle price to be offered as security. Furthermore, Defendant A, without the consent of Defendant A, acquired the loan by remitting the loan to the Defendant Company’s account, not the Defendant A’s account, to the Defendant Company’s account. Thus, Defendant A did not have the obligation to repay the loan to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, it is therefore.